8 Reviewers Go To War Against Medal Of Honor: Warfighter

8 Reviewers Go To War Against Medal Of Honor: Warfighter

Medal of Honor: Warfighter was supposed to be the big military shooter of spring. Or at least, of spring until that other big military shooter comes out in a few weeks.

Comparisons between Medal of Honor: Warfighter and its competitors, Call of Duty and Battlefield, have proven inevitable — and Warfighter does not fare well in the comparison. Opinions run the gamut, from “uninspired” to “awful”, but never actually make it up to “good”. Will more post-launch multiplayer change hearts and minds? It’s not looking good.

Perhaps the silver lining in a bad game is that it can produce excellent writing. Read on to find what reviewers ’round the world made of the muddled mess.




It’s impossible not to compare Medal of Honor: Warfighter to the Call of Duty franchise, the series that dominates the genre and so clearly serves as an inspiration for Warfighter‘s large-scale moments. While the Call of Duty series has shown solid and creative iterations year-after-year, building upon its core foundation with interesting additions, the sum of Medal of Honor: Warfighter‘s parts instead comes off as an estimation of what a shooter must have to be considered competent.




Danger Close purports to have nobler goals than just another war story. It’s talked at length about their quest for authenticity, if not realism.

Very little of it shows in the final product. Medal of Honor: Warfighter fails in almost every regard. Warfighter‘s campaign is a jumble of flashy parts that Danger Close unsuccessfully tries to glue together, and the solid foundation of its multiplayer is buried under a broken interface, small maps and poor interface design.




Charmless, cynical and uninspired, Warfighter encapsulates everything wrong with the annual big budget shooter industry. It’s really not an awful game, it’s just insipid and shallow, a title that exists solely to exist, and squeeze whatever profit remains to be had from serving the same flavorless porridge to the same unadventurous customers. It will make its money, and keep the FPS factories in business for another year.



Game Informer

Outside of a few thrilling (but out-of-place) car chase sequences that would feel more at home in a James Bond or Jason Bourne game, Warfighter brings nothing new to the table. The level design is painfully linear, and Danger Close puts a strange over-emphasis on breaching techniques. The laughable enemy AI is prone to taking cover from grenades in the middle of the street, and your oblivious squad members set up shop in your line of sight or even push you out of cover because they are scripted to position themselves in that spot. The occasional audio glitches, ugly building textures, and awkward lighting choices prove Danger Close isn’t comfortable controlling the powerful Frostbite 2 engine, as well. I even experienced a checkpoint bug that forced me to restart an entire level.




That Medal of Honor: Warfighter is utterly generic and devoid of personality doesn’t come as much of a surprise. Clearly dusted off to fill the years when DICE can’t provide EA with a new Battlefield game, Medal of Honor‘s rebirth as a khaki placeholder is now complete. This is not a game that seeks to challenge or innovate. It’s here to give you exactly what you expect and nothing more. Yet even when following in the footsteps of others, it can’t help tripping over its own boots.



PlayStation Official Magazine UK

Warfighter is at best competent. A slightly damning indictment meaning that at its highest shooty peaks this is basically average. And a five-year-old average at that, with dialogue and gameplay that crib so hard from the Modern Warfare/Generation Kill school of American foreign policy that it touches down somewhere between parody and homage. Apparently this season’s way to talk in armyland is to call everyone “brother”. Roger? Over. Review actual. Hard copy, out.




I don’t know which General Officer Bright Idea thought it was a good idea to rush this game (I’m sure it has everything to do with the timing of another upcoming military shooter) but the experience has suffered for it. While some little things like having to account for bullet drop compensation (BDC) while sniping, the inclusion of a HUD colour blindness mode, excellent voice acting, the ability to lean, and a very solid driving level makes for a compelling product, the fractured and seemingly random storyline and currently-busted multiplayer can’t be ignored.

Danger Close has a short window to get themselves squared away before it’s too late. Medal of Honor‘s reboot in 2010 was high speed, low drag, but this year’s title just feels like a rush job — a little 6P (Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance) could have gone a long way.




If you have played a military shooter in the last five years, you’ve already done every single thing you’ll do in Medal of Honor: Warfighter, and done it better. The game so epitomizes the thoughtless, drab military shooter that it frequently lapses into inadvertent self-parody. It is lackluster in almost every way. But hey, at least the flashlights look pretty good.


  • You forgot IGN’s low score of 4/10, I don’t recall any high profile game by a major publisher getting such low scores in years.

  • I thought the last MOH was pretty average anyway.

    SP: ‘Authentic’ setting let down by very linear and boring levels.

    MP: Cut down version of Bad Company 2 with tiny choked maps, virtually no vehicles or squad play.

  • I think people are too harsh on the single player. I enjoyed it. Yeah it’s fairly generic, but that’s what I expected. That’s what everything is these days.

    The MP though is shocking. I play on PC and while the single player looks great in Frostbite 2. The multiplayer doesn’t even look like it’s the same engine. It looks like it’s made in an unreal engine about 6 years ago with lots of AA smoothing to make it blurry. That is on Ultra mode. 1920×1200. The last MOH MP by dice in Frostbite 1.5 doesn’t have as fancy AA, but it was way more detailed and looks way better. The difference is shocking.

    I’m one of the few who liked the last MOH MP. I thought it was really solid, but it just needed to be expanded. Mainly more maps and locations. This MP isn’t a follow on at all from the last. Doesn’t even seem like they played the last. Where as I had imagined this MP to be a bigger better version of the last, which I could honestly have seen being a strong COD contender in Frostbite 2. This feels like some cheap free to play COD knock off rush job. It doesn’t use FB2 to do anything new or different than COD has been doing since COD4. It’s just more blurry with some better animation.

    Speaking of Ultra. While all the settings are there in MP for Ultra, High, Medium, Low. They actually do nothing. Settings are left over from SP. There are no different when you change, texture quality or mesh quality ect. Shadow makes a tiny difference in low. But not really noticeable. So PC MP seems to directly be the console version. Also if that is how bad console games normally look?

    Of course non of this is mentioning the horrible UI or bugs. You literally spawn outside or under the map at times. In Combat mission which was awesome and big showing off the Frostbite engine in the last game. In this it’s small and tiny in corridor maps. If you’re defending and they take the base. The current area becomes non playable and you have a few seconds to get to the playable area or it kills you. I have never once made it back to the playable area.

    It’s just pathetically badly done. Which is a shame as I had actually really looked forward to the MP.

    Honestly for PC they need to go fix the design, detail textures, objects for the maps ASAP. Alter the rendering settings so it doesn’t look like there’s vaseline on the screen. Port over the maps from the last game and add them. Change the UI and maybe there’s a chance it’ll not be a waste. Maybe beg and plead DICE to do an overhaul. It’s just a pull down job. Frankly as a PC game player I am really angry about the state of the MP. Nothing should be released for PC like this.

    Oh and I never mentioned the sound in the MP is pretty bad at all. It reminds me of how crap the sound is when I go and play BF2.

  • “While the Call of Duty series has shown solid and creative iterations year-after-year”
    I must have been playing the wrong Call of Duty’s.

  • Was gonna get this just for bf4 beta.. sounds like absolute dog piss, ah well as long as moh doesn’t intefere with battlelog

  • Focusing entirely on SP (as I have still only played an hour or so MP) I think it’s good. Not great. Not revolutionary – duh. It’s good. Fun even.

    Running on a high end gaming PC. A sight to behold. The game runs well – looks great and plays well too. The cover system is a nice little addition and remains locked down the sights as per less visual advantage.

    The comparisons made to the likes of CoD and Battlefield are of course inevitable but isn’t that exactly the reason why we adapt to a particular shooter in the first place? I personally avoid anything CoD or MW online. I was over it around MW2 but had a go at both BLOPS and MW3.

    To Hell with CoD and MW. Battlefield, Arma II and most others including MOH are the military FPS I enjoy the most. Although the classic CoD campaigns are pure entertainment I got a kick outta Modern Warfare and World at War but they are otherwise tainted and inferior products. Just my preference. Especially with regard to MP.

    After playing MP Black Ops II I can again see the appeal. Even though it aint my game the MP levels I played were multi-tiered and engaging enemy over multiple levels was a lot of fun. A particular mountain village map was the highlight.

    I’ve played the CoD and MW franchise enough now that it simply isn’t the FPS I am looking for. I’ve played all campaigns (excluding BLOPS2) and they are enjoyable enough, but it is those games I find bland. Cliché. With so many more day one purchases (like Far Cry 3, Hitman, Crysis 3, Colonial Marines and of course Arma III) – my FPS department has no current vacancies.

    Even if MOH is shunned for its more grounded approach or unremarkable scenarios, the truth is at least in SP you have a solid “Just Another Military First Person Shooter – Warfighter”.

    MOH has an approach that rings true with me more so than the CoDs out there. Again huge credit to DICE and the Frostite 2 engine.

    Another thing I would like to mention is the stupidity of your AI team mates. Needs a patch. They need a purpose. That’s my biggest gripe with the game. Even if you have to throw half as many more enemies at me to give them something to do… I won’t try to deny that MOH has problems but I think its getting a thrashing it doesn’t really deserve.

    Worth playing if you can accept a maybe mediocre FPS in an already overpopulated genre. Blah blah blah.

  • I think the new Medal of Honour game is another let down from ‘Danger Close’ and ‘EA’. I like the idea that they included more than just US Armed Forces but that isn’t enough in my opinion. Single Player Story is confusing at times, the game’s engine is frontbite 2 but it doesn’t look anything like what BF3 had except for the cut scenes. I was disappointed with MoH but it’s nice to see that they used the one engine for the whole game instead of two like the previous MoH.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!